Self-Estrangement’s Toll on Job Performance: The Pivotal Role of Social Exchange Relationships With Coworkers

Abstract

Perhaps because self-estrangement is inherently dysfunctional, empirical research has primarily sought to understand its antecedents but not its consequences. As a result, despite its ubiquity in the workplace, self-estrangement’s insidious effects are not well understood. In this paper, because coworkers frequently bear the brunt of interactions with self-estranged workers, we sought to understand how the behavior of self-estranged workers corrodes their social exchange relationships with coworkers. In particular, we focus on how increasing self-estrangement, through its dysfunctional influence on the quality of social exchange relationships with coworkers, can exact a toll on estranged workers’ job performance. To provide greater insight into their relationships, we extend social exchange theory by specifying three behavioral outcomes that underlie the quality of ongoing, reciprocal exchanges, including the level of trustworthiness, accessibility, and peer citizenship behavior. To test our model, we gathered matching survey data in a large corporation from three sources, including 346 professional employees, a knowledgeable coworker, and their supervisor. Results show that self-estrangement indirectly impacts job performance and damages relationships with coworkers by reducing the estranged workers’ level of trustworthiness, accessibility, and peer citizen behavior. We also found that each of these behavioral outcomes served as a significant intervening mechanism separately, as well as when they were combined as a set, suggesting that coworker social exchange quality should be viewed as multidimensional.

Keywords

self-estrangement job performance coworkers social exchange relationships trustworthiness accessibility peer citizenship behavior

Although Karl Marx (1844/1932) warned of self-estrangement and its potentially corrosive consequences for organizational life more than a century and a half ago, it still remains ubiquitous in the workplace (Bacharach, Bamberger, & Sonnenstuhl, 2002; Kahn, 1990; Pech & Slade, 2006). Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of almost 150,000 employees found that 52% of respondents reported being emotionally disconnected to some extent in the workplace (Gallup, 2013). Thus, despite occasional media attention paid to the dire consequences of estranged workers, the day-to-day impact of estrangement in the workplace still remains largely unexplored. While self-estrangement is experienced as unpleasant feelings that can be fleeting and inconsequential (e.g., “Work just seemed to drag today”), it can also be more deeply felt and painful (e.g., “I really hate working here”) with dysfunctional consequences. Essentially, self-estrangement has been described as a “cognitive sense of separation” (Nair & Vohra, 2012:27) between the self and work or other elements of the workplace environment (Fromm, 1955; Horowitz, 1966; Kanungo, 1979; Overend, 1975). Because it is a dissociative state (Schacht, 1970), self-estrangement is generally enacted as increasing indifference, passive role enactment (Kahn, 1990), or even increasing anger toward work or the workplace (Pech & Slade, 2006).

Because Marx (1844/1932) stressed the inherent nature of organizations as a driver of self-estrangement, extensive research has focused on organizational structural elements as antecedents. For example, management scholars have tied estrangement to organizational constructs, such as formalization (cf. Organ & Greene, 1981; Podsakoff, Williams, & Todor, 1986), centralization (cf. Miller, 1967; Nair & Vohra, 2010), the nature of work technology (cf. Rousseau, 1977), organizational leadership (cf. Sarros, Tanewski, Winter, Santora, & Densten, 2002), and industry differences (cf. Blauner, 1964; Leiter, 1985; Seeman, 1975). However, other than Bacharach et al.’s (2002) study of the impact of self-estrangement on problem drinking, which found no direct or indirect effects, there has been scant research attention to linking self-estrangement to dysfunctional workplace behaviors. Hence, beyond its inherently dysfunctional nature, our understanding of its insidious effects in the workplace remains limited. Consequently, while our focus is on how self-estrangement impacts job performance, we also sought to bring more attention to this salient, understudied construct by clarifying it conceptually and differentiating it from the more contemporary constructs of job involvement and engagement.

Building on self-estrangement and social exchange theory, we propose a model to explain how increasing levels of self-estrangement can undermine the quality of estranged workers’ exchange relationships with coworkers and thereby adversely impact their job performance. We were motivated to focus on the mediating role played by their reciprocal exchange relationships with coworkers for two reasons. First, because the quality of their reciprocal exchange relationships is likely to be degraded by their behavior, it could play a pivotal role in explaining how self-estrangement impacts job performance. And second, although there has been considerable research on the quality of social exchange relationships, it has primarily focused on vertical dyads, including employee-employer exchange (e.g., Bateman & Organ, 1983; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983; Organ, 1988) and supervisor-subordinate exchange (e.g., Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Dienesch & Liden, 1986), whereas there has been much less research attention paid to social exchange among coworkers (e.g., Cropanzano, Li, & Benson, 2011; Dirks & Skarlicki, 2009; Sherony & Green, 2002). While these studies have made inroads into exchange processes and peer justice perceptions and the manner in which these might influence performance, they do not address how self-estrangement might alter reciprocal exchange relationships among coworkers, nor do they empirically investigate individual behavioral outcomes that manifest within these ongoing relationships. Indeed, after a review of the literature, Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005: 878) concluded that there is a lack of research on coworker social exchange relationships, which presents an “interesting avenue for future research.” Consequently, because our understanding of the quality of coworker exchange relationships remains underdeveloped (Flynn, 2003), we also sought to specify the behavioral outcomes of their reciprocal exchanges.

Theoretical Background

Self-Estrangement

Self-estrangement, or Selbstentfremdung according to Marx (1844/1932), is a “suffering” or angst expressed about one’s work activity. Although Marx envisioned self-estrangement as the central construct of alienation in his manuscript titled “Estranged Labour” (Marx, 1844/1932), early sociological scholars included it in the broader concept of alienation that they variously viewed as representing several different meanings, most notably, powerlessness, meaninglessness, normlessness, isolation, and self-estrangement (Seeman, 1959). However, researchers such as Kanungo (1979) and Mottaz (1981) raised serious concerns about such conceptualizations, noting in particular the overlapping and confounding relationships between these terms. Mottaz (1981), for example, found that meaninglessness of work was an antecedent of alienation. In large part, this emphasis on concepts such as meaninglessness or powerlessness reflects the historical focus on manual laborers and the broader issues of workers being viewed as a commodity.

More recently, after an extensive review of the literature, Nair and Vohra (2012: 44) reported that interest in research on alienation has waned because its multidimensional conceptualization “continues to be warped in confusion.” As a consequence, although self-estrangement has been the “common theme, appearing in most conceptualizations” of alienation (Nair & Vohra, 2010: 602) and “many contemporary sociologists believe [it] is the heart of the alienation concept” (Kanungo, 1979: 124), it has received scant research attention as a separate construct primarily because it has been embedded within alienation research (Podsakoff et al., 1986). For example, in the alienation literature, self-estrangement has been discussed in clinical psychology (Havens, 1989; Minuchin, 1974), management (Podsakoff et al., 1986; Nair & Vohra, 2010), sociology (Seeman, 1975), marketing (Allison, 1978; Michaels, Cron, Dubinsky, & Joachimsthaler, 1988), and criminology (Poole & Regoli, 1981). In this literature, alienation has been associated with dysfunctional outcomes, such as absenteeism, burnout, health symptoms, task performance, and organizational citizenship behavior (cf. Chiaburu, Thundiyil, & Wang, 2014). Hence, although previous alienation research has been instructive, given its lack of conceptual clarity, we focus on self-estrangement as a distinct, core construct.

As a theoretical construct, self-estrangement has been described as a dissociative state (Schacht, 1970) due to a sense of psychological separation from the self (Fromm, 1955; Horowitz, 1966; Kanungo, 1979), that is, between one’s self-image in the workplace and one’s ideal-self (Seeman, 1959). In addition, because of the “importance of work as part of one’s self-image” (Lodahl & Kejner, 1965: 24) and the influence of the work environment on self-image (Fromm, 1955; Horowitz, 1966; Kanungo, 1979; Overend, 1975), self-estrangement is experienced as unpleasant, distressing feelings toward work and its environment (Nair & Vohra, 2012; Reevy, Ozer, & Ito, 2010). In sum, self-estrangement is a dissociative state involving a cognitive sense of separation between one’s self-image at work and one’s ideal-self, which is experienced as unpleasant, distressful feelings toward one’s work and its environment.

In the management literature, self-estrangement is largely unknown (Bratton, Callinan, Forshaw, & Sawchuck, 2007; Nair & Vohra, 2012). Nevertheless, the literature provides some evidence about the nomological connections of this construct to other related constructs. Conceptually, Nair and Vohra sought to differentiate alienation, which they broadly described as “estrangement or disconnect from work, the context or the self” (2012: 26), from constructs that have been viewed as its obverse. In particular, they focused on the long-standing construct of job involvement and the popular, less researched construct of work engagement that is broadly viewed as containing job involvement as its core dimension (Bakker, Schaufeli, Leiter, & Taris, 2008). After an extensive review of the literature, including research on the antecedents and consequences of these constructs, Nair and Vohra conclude that estrangement is not the opposite of involvement or engagement and has a “unique contribution to make towards understanding the link between experience at work and employee-related outcomes” (2012: 25).

Empirically, Chiaburu et al. (2014) conducted a meta-analysis encompassing research on alienation and self-estrangement. The study was, in part, motivated by previous job involvement research, which assumed that alienation and self-estrangement were the opposite of involvement (Brown, 1996; Kanungo, 1979). Despite this long-standing assumption, Chiaburu et al.’s findings were inconclusive and could not provide “strong evidence for either construct distinctiveness or for construct overlap” (2014: 33). Moreover, Chiaburu et al. found a corrected correlation between alienation and job involvement of ρ = −.25 (k = 13, N = 2,409), which was below their expectations given that research had used these constructs interchangeably. Further, extensive research has shown that positive and negative affect are not polar opposites of the same state but rather separate, distinct, independent states (e.g., J. Mayer & Gaschke, 1988; National Advisory Mental Health Council, 1995; Russell & Carroll, 1999; Tellegen, Watson, & Clark, 1999; Watson & Clark, 1997; Zautra, Potter, & Reich, 1997). Put differently, because workers are not experiencing self-estrangement does not mean that they will be highly involved or engaged in work. Conversely, because workers experience high levels of self-estrangement does not mean that they are completely uninvolved or disengaged. Indeed, the conundrum for estranged workers and the proximal source of their distress is that very often they must continue to work because it is instrumental as a means to other ends. Hence, we infer that job involvement and work engagement, as positive affect states (Macey & Schneider, 2008), are not likely to be the antipodal of self-estrangement.

Coworker Social Exchange Relationships

Because extant social exchange theory has generally not focused on reciprocal exchanges between coworkers (Flynn, 2003), we sought to extend theory by drawing upon Sahlins’ (1972) foundational framework. While this framework applies to any two entities in an exchange relationship, to date it has been applied primarily to vertical dyads, such as superior-subordinate or employee-organization exchanges, (e.g., Sparrowe & Liden, 1997; Uhl-Bien & Maslyn, 2003; Wu et al., 2006). With respect to coworkers in moderately close contexts, the framework identifies two types of reciprocity, balanced and generalized. Balanced reciprocity among coworkers refers to “transactions that stipulate returns of commensurate worth or utility within a finitely narrow period” (Sahlins, 1972: 195), and generalized reciprocity “refers to transactions that are putatively altruistic, transactions on the line of assistance given and, if possible and necessary, assistance returned” (Sahlins, 1972: 193-194). Although balanced and generalized reciprocity capture the nature of social exchange transactions associated with relational quality (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Uhl-Bien & Maslyn, 2003; Wu et al., 2006), they do not provide sufficient insights into the specific behavioral outcomes that result from ongoing, quality exchange relationships. Hence, by extending this framework, we theorize three behavioral outcomes.

Outcomes of balanced reciprocity

Balanced reciprocity entails two dimensions, equivalence of returns and immediacy of returns (Sahlins, 1972). Equivalence of returns is based on the expectation that one will get as good as one gives. However, since valuation of equivalence is often subjective and imprecise (Blau, 1964), returns are expected to be “roughly equivalent to what was received” (Uhl-Bien & Maslyn, 2003: 512) and should balance out over the long run. As these give-and-take transactions between coworkers are enacted over time, an implied “standard of fair conduct” (Sahlins, 1972: 308) develops that carries an obligation to repay with a moral force that builds trust (Sahlins, 1972). Specifically, the inherent risk in equivalence of returns (e.g., will my investment be repaid) is a requisite of trust because the “need for trust only arises in a risky situation” (R. Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995: 711). Consequently, as equivalence obligations are honored, an affective link, or affect-based trust (McAllister, 1995), develops between coworkers (R. Mayer et al., 1995), which reduces uncertainty about the likelihood that a coworker will fully reciprocate (R. Mayer et al., 1995; Molm, Takahashi, & Peterson, 2000; Uhl-Bien & Maslyn, 2003). Hence, we infer that trustworthiness is a salient relational outcome of an ongoing, quality exchange relationship between coworkers.

The second dimension of balanced reciprocity, immediacy of returns, captures the “time allowed for reciprocation” (Sahlins, 1972: 193) and the expectation of timely returns (Sparrowe & Liden, 1997; Uhl-Bien & Maslyn, 2003) “without delay” (Sahlins, 1972: 194). Because work in today’s fast-paced organizations can often necessitate timely, if not instantaneous, exchanges of information or coordination of work products (Golden & Raghuram, 2010), a coworker’s accessibility to reciprocate is essential. Indeed, because of the technologically enhanced communication devices available in the workplace, expectations of accessibility have grown exponentially (Golden & Raghuram, 2010), approaching almost real-time responses via e-mail, voicemail, or text message. Moreover, when a complex, nuanced work problem is better addressed face-to-face, accessibility is also paramount for coworkers seeking a timely resolution. Hence, we infer that accessibility is a salient relational outcome of an ongoing, quality exchange relationship between coworkers.

Outcomes of generalized reciprocity

Generalized reciprocity takes the form of “assistance freely-given” (Sahlins, 1972: 193), and unlike balanced reciprocity, in which reciprocation is expected, there is no explicit counter-obligation. However, there are implicit obligations that benefits should be returned if at all possible or necessary (Sahlins, 1972). Characterized as putatively altruistic, generalized reciprocity is a form of helping, which is the “currency of everyday friendship and neighborly relations” (Sahlins, 1972: 191) that enhances relationships. Between coworkers, generalized reciprocity takes the form of helping and assistance that is discretionary and beyond the bounds of their formally defined jobs, which, in the aggregate, promotes quality exchange relationships (Organ, 1988). Consistent with this, in their foundational research on organizational citizenship behavior, Smith et al. identified a distinct “class of helping behaviors aimed directly at specific persons” (1983: 661), which they also classified as altruistic. However, use of the term altruistic has been viewed as too limiting because it presumes a motive (Organ, 1997) but does not capture the behaviors evidenced by others. Subsequently, following the lead of Williams and Anderson (1991), Organ differentiated citizenship behavior that is “targeted toward a specific individual as they are acted out” (1997: 94) from behavior that is directed toward an organization (McNeely & Meglino, 1994). Given this, as a result of generalized reciprocity targeted at coworkers, we infer that peer citizenship behavior is a salient relational outcome of an ongoing, quality exchange relationship between coworkers.

Hypotheses

The Mediating Role of Trustworthiness

As their self-estrangement increases, estranged workers begin to feel a greater sense of cognitive separation and become more passive and indifferent toward others. As a consequence, they are apt to invest less time and energy into maintaining exchange relationships with their coworkers (Kahn, 1992). Although they may be accessible, as estranged workers begin withholding some cognitive and emotional resources, coworkers may begin to question the equivalence of returns provided by them (Greenberg & Grunberg, 1995), which eventually creates an imbalance in their ongoing exchange relationship. Thus, as this imbalance increases and coworkers’ level of concern is piqued over not receiving roughly equal benefits from them (Uhl-Bien & Maslyn, 2003), coworkers are more likely to sense that estranged workers cannot be readily trusted to fully reciprocate. Eventually, by exhibiting greater ambivalence or even passive anger (e.g., becoming more sullen or curt) toward work and the working environment (Brown, 1996; Kanungo, 1979; Riketta, 2002), estranged workers clearly signal to coworkers that they cannot be counted on to reciprocate in full measure (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Hence, as their self-estrangement increases, they are apt to become less trustworthy in their reciprocal exchanges with coworkers (Levin, Whitener, & Cross, 2006).

With respect to trustworthiness’s impact on job performance, Levin and Cross (2004) found that trust mediated the knowledge transfer between coworkers with weak network ties, such that as trust declined, knowledge transfer significantly declined. Following this line of reasoning, we would expect that as estranged workers become less trustworthy, the quality and quantity of information they receive from coworkers is apt to decline, particularly as coworkers seek to realign the level of benefit they provide in proportion to what they now believe they can expect from them (Sahlins, 1972; Uhl-Bien & Maslyn, 2003). In addition, paralleling these findings, Colquitt, Scott, and LePine (2007) conducted a meta-analytic study of 27 independent samples and found a positive link between trust and job performance, as have subsequent studies (e.g., Dirks & Skarlicki, 2009). Given these findings, we would expect that as estranged workers’ trustworthiness declines, they are less likely to obtain from coworkers the critical information and assistance they need in order to coordinate or effectively complete their assignments. Hence, we posit that as self-estrangement increases, it will negatively impact estranged workers’ level of trustworthiness in reciprocal exchanges with coworkers, resulting in a reduction in the quality and quantity of critical information they receive from them and, subsequently, their job performance. Formally stated, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 1: Self-estrangement will negatively influence the trustworthiness of estranged workers in their social exchanges with coworkers and, as a result, have a negative, indirect effect on their job performance.

The Mediating Role of Accessibility

Beyond trustworthiness, the accessibility of estranged workers to engage in exchange relationships with coworkers can serve as an intervening mechanism between self-estrangement and job performance. As their self-estrangement intensifies, instead of being an integral part of a work unit’s social fabric, estranged workers are more likely to begin operating at the fringe (Kahn, 1992). Here, too, by investing less time and effort into their relationships, they are less apt to be responsive to requests from coworkers (Schacht, 1970). For example, they may simply delay responding to requests from coworkers via phone, e-mail, or text message. Or they may convey inaccessibility by giving off subtle, nonverbal cues that they are less willing or able to be approached or emotionally available (Brown, 1996; Nair & Vohra, 2012; Schacht, 1970). These cues might include avoiding eye contact, keeping their office door ajar or closed, or behaving harried or distant around coworkers. Hence, as their self-estrangement increases, estranged workers are apt to become less accessible to engage in reciprocal exchanges with coworkers.

Extent research involving diverse samples and meta-analytic comparisons suggest that accessibility to coworkers may be an important driver of job performance (Balkundi & Harrison, 2006; Borgatti & Cross, 2003; O’Reilly, 1982). Moreover, given the importance of “unfettered access” (Balkundi & Harrison, 2006: 54) to coworkers and the expertise derived from such exchanges, accessibility should also provide critical “opportunities for tacit knowledge to be transferred” (Koskinen, Pihlanto, & Vanharanta, 2003: 288). Thus, even when estranged workers can be trusted to continue reciprocating in full, their growing inaccessibility gradually reduces the timeliness of their exchanges (O’Reilly, 1982), particularly as coworkers are forced to pursue them or wait an inordinately long time for needed information. Consequently, coworkers are likely to begin questioning their “liberty or ability to approach or communicate with [them]” (Pinto, Pinto, & Prescott, 1993: 1286). Hence, as estranged workers become less accessible, coworkers are either less likely to seek them out for reciprocation or provide less timely reciprocation to them (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005) in order to rebalance the cost/benefit of reciprocal exchanges with them (Grant & Ashford, 2008). Consequently, instead of being able to rely upon coworkers to share their insights, relevant experiences, and judgments about work products and challenges in a timely manner, estranged workers become increasingly isolated from a network of relevant information necessary to perform their jobs in a timely manner (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Levin & Cross, 2004; R. Mayer et al., 1995). Hence, we posit that as self-estrangement increases, it will have a direct, negative effect on estranged workers’ level of accessibility, thereby reducing timely exchange of essential information, resulting in an indirect, negative effect on job performance. Formally stated, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 2: Self-estrangement will negatively influence the accessibility of estranged workers to engage in social exchanges with coworkers and, as a result, have a negative, indirect effect on their job performance.

The Mediating Role of Peer Citizenship Behavior

Peer citizenship behavior, not formally required by one’s job (Smith et al., 1983), can serve to strengthen relationships with coworkers or enhance the work environment (Organ, 1997). For example, such behavior can involve volunteering to pick up the slack for a sick coworker, trading vacation days to help a coworker, or offering to complete a project for a coworker who wants to leave early to attend his or her daughter’s recital. Although peer citizenship behavior does not explicitly require reciprocation because the “expectation of return is unseemly [and] implicit” (Sahlins, 1972: 194), there are counter-obligations, particularly as benefits accrue over time (Organ, 1997) and coworkers “perceive [an] imbalance in the giving and receiving of favors” (Flynn, 2003: 539).

For estranged workers, as their estrangement intensifies and is enacted through their growing unwillingness to exert discretionary effort (Kahn, 1990; Seeman, 1959), taking the initiative for acts that benefit coworkers is likely to wane. Indeed, given their proneness to devote less cognitive and emotional resources to their job (Kahn, 1990) with increasing estrangement, they are less apt to volunteer the requisite time and effort required by such extra-role behavior (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993, 1997), despite accrued counter-obligations to reciprocate. Moreover, because they are less prone to demonstrate concern for the welfare of coworkers as their estrangement deepens (Bolino & Turnley, 2005; Moon, Kamdar, Mayer, & Takeuchi, 2008), they are less likely to engage in peer citizenship behaviors. Consequently, consistent with the meta-analytic link between alienation and organizational citizenship (cf. Chiaburu et al., 2014), as self-estrangement increases, the extent to which estranged workers engage in peer citizenship behavior is likely to decline.

In addition, when estranged workers are less engaged in peer citizenship behavior or their accrued counter-obligations go unreciprocated, coworkers are more likely to notice an imbalance (Flynn, 2003). As this imbalance increases, coworkers are more apt to invest less of their time or energy into peer citizenship behaviors directed toward estranged workers (Balkundi & Harrison, 2006; Koskinen et al., 2003). Consider, for example, how a coworker is likely to react after he or she has driven an estranged coworker to an auto repair shop several times but then is refused the same or even similar help. Eventually, as Flynn found, continually volunteering help or assistance without receiving any benefits in return, leads coworkers to “develop feelings of resentment, which hinders cooperation and, in turn, the focal employee’s [estranged workers’] productivity” (2003: 549). Moreover, as estranged workers fail to engage in peer citizenship behavior, they can also suffer subtle, or not so subtle, reputational affects (Flynn, 2003), which can serve to further damage their job performance and negatively influence their manager’s assessment of them as well (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). Hence, consistent with prior research that has found a negative link between organizational citizenship behavior and job performance (e.g., Avila, Fern, & Mann, 1988; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1991, 1993; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Paine, 1999), we posit that as estrangement intensifies, it will reduce the extent to which estranged workers engage in peer citizenship behavior and, thereby, have an indirect, negative effect on job performance. Formally stated, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 3: Self-estrangement will negatively influence the level of peer citizenship behavior engaged in by estranged workers in social exchanges with coworkers and, as a result, have a negative, indirect effect on their job performance.

And finally, because trustworthiness, accessibility, and peer citizenship behavior have each been theorized as specific salient outcomes of quality exchange relationships between coworkers, we hypothesize the following, as a corollary:

Hypothesis 4: When the intervening roles of trustworthiness, accessibility, and peer citizenship behavior are considered together, each will carry a significant indirect effect of self-estrangement to job performance.

Method

Sample and Procedure

We tested our model using data collected from matched responses from three sources: the participants of our study, a knowledgeable coworker who knew them well, and each participant’s supervisor. The participants were professional-level employees in a large corporation in the United States who were randomly selected by the firm’s human resources department. Prior to beginning data collection, we worked with representatives in the human resources department to ensure that participants were chosen who reported to different supervisors in order to avoid overburdening supervisors with survey requests. Participants received an e-mail from a senior executive requesting their voluntary participation in the study and instructing them where to complete the survey online. Because the survey was not on the firm’s website, participants were assured anonymity and confidentiality. At the completion of the survey, participants were also asked to send an e-mail to their supervisor and a knowledgeable coworker who knew them well, requesting their voluntary participation in an online survey about them. All three sources were matched via an identification number that each participant provided to his or her coworker and supervisor.

To reduce any common-method bias, the participants assessed their level of self-estrangement; a knowledgeable coworker assessed three behavioral outcomes of the participants’ social exchange behavior, including their level of trustworthiness, accessibility, and engagement in peer citizenship behavior; and supervisors assessed the participants’ job performance. Rather than randomly selecting a participant’s coworker, we chose instead to have the participants identify and request the participation of a coworker who knew them well, for two reasons. First, consistent with the key informant technique (Burgess, 1989; Kumar, Stern, & Anderson, 1993), we believed that a knowledgeable coworker could provide a more informed evaluation of the participant. And, second, we were concerned about the matched response rate if coworkers were randomly chosen because they may be more reluctant to participate and/or less able to evaluate the participants (e.g., a newer coworker).

Out of 1,300 employees who were requested to participate, we received matching surveys from 346 participants, their coworkers, and supervisors (27%). The participants averaged 42 years of age, and 67 percent were female. Having worked with the participants for an average of 43 months, their coworkers averaged 45 years of age, and 65 percent were female. The participants’ supervisors averaged 49 years of age, and 74 percent were female. As a check on our sample, we also compared our responses to data collected from a pilot study (N = 47). We found no significant differences in participants’ gender (t = −.49, ns), age (t = −.98, ns), self-estrangement (t = −1.41, ns), or other variables, giving us confidence that our sample was representative.

Measures

All of the items for our measures, as well as their scales, are provided in the appendix. Cronbach’s alphas, demonstrating reliability of each measure, are reported in Table 1. For all measures, items were averaged to create a final score.

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Age	42.48	4.86
2. Gender^a	1.67	0.47	.01
3. Years in position	4.96	3.02	.13*	.08
4. Dyad tenure (months)	43.19	42.80	.08	−.07	.35**
5. Professional level	1.92	1.09	.22**	.01	.08	.04
6. Job performance	3.87	.75	.10	−.04	−.02	−.10	.08	(.91)
7. Trustworthiness	3.64	.76	.29**	−.12*	−.03	−.12*	.26**	.47**	(.92)
8. Accessibility	4.29	.64	.07	−.04	.02	−.04	.25**	.44**	.44**	(.90)
9. Peer citizenship behavior	3.45	.74	.19**	−.09	.02	−.11*	.16**	.51**	.47**	.48**	(.90)
10. Self-estrangement	2.09	.68	−.15**	.10	.11*	.02	−.24**	−.17**	−.27**	−.29**	−.25**	(.86)

Note: N = 346. Coefficient alpha reliabilities are on the diagonal in parentheses.

Male = 1; female = 2.

p < .05.

p < .01.

Self-estrangement

Participants assessed their level of self-estrangement using a five-item measure. Initially we combined Bacharach et al.’s (2002) five-item measure, which assessed estrangement from work, with three items drawn from Lodahl and Kejner (1965) that were slightly modified to emphasize estrangement from the working environment. The three items we chose were dropped by Lodahl and Kejner in their short-form measure because they loaded on a separate factor that involved negative affect toward work and were attributed to an individual who has “given up caring much about work” (1965: 27). Because we combined two measures, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis on all eight items, which resulted in dropping three of them: two from Bacharach et al. (2002) and one from Lodahl and Kejner (1965). Then, to further demonstrate our final measure’s validity, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) that indicated an adequate fit with the data, χ²(5, N = 346) = 35.74, p < .001, comparative fit index (CFI) = .96, incremental fit index (IFI) = .96, normed fit index (NFI) = .95, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .08, and provided evidence of construct validity. We also correlated the final measure with an established measure of professional isolation (Golden, Veiga, & Dino, 2008) and, as expected, found a significant positive relationship (r = .55, p < .01), further demonstrating convergent validity of the measure. And finally, to provide further evidence of the distinctiveness of our measure, we subsequently gathered a convenience sample. The sample included 229 full-time employees (61% male, 34 years of age on average) who assessed their level of self-estrangement, work engagement (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006), and job involvement (Kanungo, 1982). CFA demonstrated that a three-factor model (self-estrangement, job involvement, work engagement) had the best fit, χ²(206, N = 229) = 458, p < .001, CFI = .93, IFI = .93, RMSEA = .07, while alternative two- and one-factor models did not exhibit adequate fit statistics (Kelloway, 1998). A model combining involvement with engagement, χ²(208, N = 229) = 1372, p < .001, CFI = .68, IFI = .69, RMSEA = .16, exhibited poor fit statistics and had a significant chi-square difference with the three-factor model, ∆χ²(2) = 914, p < .001, as did a model combining self-estrangement with involvement, χ²(208, N = 229) = 1015, p < .001, CFI = .78, IFI = .78, RMSEA = .13, ∆ χ²(2) = 557, p < .001; a model combining self-estrangement with engagement, χ²(208, N = 229) = 1016, p < .001, CFI = .78, IFI = .78, RMSEA = .13, ∆χ²(2) = 558, p < .001; and a model with all three factors combined χ²(209, N = 229) = 1845, p < .001, CFI = .55, IFI = .56, RMSEA = .18, ∆χ²(3) = 1387, p < .001. Correlational evidence was supportive as well, with the correlation between self-estrangement and job involvement (–.45), between self-estrangement and engagement (–.42), and between engagement and job involvement (.47). In sum, the evidence supports the construct validity of self-estrangement and further validates previous conceptually and empirically based nomological distinctions.

Trustworthiness

Coworkers assessed the participants’ trustworthiness using Levin et al.’s (2006) three-item measure adapted from Johnson, Cullen, Sakano, and Takenouchi (1996). This measure has been used by others to assess trustworthiness in dyadic, reciprocal transactions that is consistent with McAllister’s (1995) measure of affect-based trust.

Accessibility

Coworkers assessed the participants’ accessibility using the three-item measure of information accessibility adapted from O’Reilly (1982). This measure has been relied upon extensively to assess individual accessibility (e.g., Borgatti & Cross, 2003; Morrison & Vancouver, 2000; Yuan, Carboni, & Ehrlich, 2010) and was adapted to capture a participant’s responsiveness, timeliness, and availability to coworker requests.

Peer citizenship behavior

Given our focus on helping behavior that directly benefits a coworker, we used a seven-item measure of organizational citizenship behavior that captured “behavior that is directly and intentionally aimed at helping a specific person” (Smith et al., 1983: 657). The measure, which coworkers used to assess participants, was adapted from Wayne, Shore, and Liden (1997) to specifically emphasize peer citizenship behavior aimed at helping a coworker.

Job performance

Supervisors assessed participants’ job performance using a four-item measure developed by Wayne and Liden (1995). This measure has been extensively used and has been found to exhibit sound psychometric properties (e.g., Bolino & Turnley, 2003; Golden et al., 2008; Kacmar, Collins, Harris, & Judge, 2009).

Control variables

We controlled for a number of demographic variables in order to eliminate alternative explanations for our results, as demographic variables have been found in reviews of the literature to be related to performance in approximately one third of studies and are the most widely used control variables (Bernerth & Aguinis, in press). Prior research suggests that men and women may be rated differently in their job performance due to the manner in which gender is viewed, and individuals’ age may also influence judgments of performance (Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1993; Ng & Feldman, 2008). Similarly, individuals with more job or dyadic tenure may have more job-relevant knowledge and skill, which could enable them to achieve higher job performance (Sturman, 2003; Wright & Bonett, 2002). Moreover, individuals in higher management levels may experience greater job demands and ambiguity, which make assessing their job performance more difficult (Tubre & Collins, 2000). Hence, beyond controlling for the participant’s age (years) and gender (1 = male, 2 = female), we also controlled for job experience (years in current position), professional level (lowest = 1, highest = 5) using the corporation’s professional responsibility classification system, and dyad tenure (months) that is, the length of time the participant and knowledgeable coworker worked together.

Evaluation of Measures

Although our measures had been previously validated and we used data from three different sources, we nonetheless conducted a CFA on the five measures in our model (trustworthiness, accessibility, peer citizenship behavior, self-estrangement, and job performance) in order to ensure their discriminant validity. The fit of the proposed five-factor model was empirically tested to examine whether it fit the data better than did other competing models (Kelloway, 1998). We found that the five-factor model had the best fit with the data, χ²(199, N = 346) = 459, p < .001, CFI = .95, IFI = .95, NFI = .91, RMSEA = .06, while alternative four-, three-, two-, and one-factor models did not exhibit adequate fit statistics. For example, a four-factor model with trustworthiness, accessibility, and peer citizenship behavior in separate factors while combining self-estrangement and job performance exhibited a poor fit, χ²(203, N = 346) = 1130, p < .001, CFI = .82, IFI = .82, NFI = .79, RMSEA = .12, and the chi-square difference with our five-factor model was significant, ∆χ²(4) = 671, p < .01. Similarly, a two-factor model combining trustworthiness, accessibility, and peer citizenship behavior into one factor and self-estrangement and job performance into another factor exhibited a worse fit, χ²(208, N = 346) = 2110, p < .001, CFI = .62, IFI = .63, NFI = .60, RMSEA = .16, and the difference with our five-factor model was significant, ∆χ²(9) = 1651, p < .01. A one-factor model combining all constructs into one factor exhibited a poor fit, χ²(209, N = 346) = 2613, p < .001, CFI = .52, IFI = .53, NFI = .51, RMSEA = .18, with the difference in fit again significant, ∆χ²(10) = 2154, p < .01. Thus, our proposed five-factor model fit the data better than competing models, supporting the discriminant validity of our measures.

Further, in order to reduce any concerns over key informant bias and reliability issues, we conducted additional analysis. As part of our supervisor survey, supervisors were requested to assess the participants’ trustworthiness, accessibility, and peer citizenship behavior. Then, to determine whether or not there were any significant differences in these assessments, we used the paired-samples t test to compare the distribution of responses of knowledgeable coworkers with supervisors. We found no significant differences in their responses on trustworthiness (t = −.12, ns), accessibility (t = .01, ns), or peer citizenship behavior (t = −.29, ns). We then assessed reliability by comparing scale responses (mean differences and correlations), as suggested by Jones, Johnson, Butler, and Main (1983). As expected, our analysis confirmed a significant level of interrater and intersource reliability between the participants’ knowledgeable coworkers and their supervisors (trustworthiness, r = .25, p < .01; accessibility, r = .18, p < .01; peer citizenship behavior, r = .44, p < .01), indicating no systematic bias in direction or magnitude of the knowledgeable coworker responses.

Results

Analytical Approach

To test our multiple-mediator, indirect-effects model, we utilized the ordinary least squares regression macro approach developed by Preacher and Hayes (2008) designed to assess and compare the indirect effects of several mediators. Commonly recommended (Mathieu & Taylor, 2006; Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007) for multiple-mediator models, this parsimonious approach offers several advantages over previous simple-mediation models (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002; Preacher & Hayes, 2008; Shrout & Bolger, 2002). For example, we are able to simultaneously assess the unique effects of each mediator while the effects of the other mediators are controlled for in the model as well as test the effects of all mediators as a set, thus providing deeper insight into their combined role. In addition, this approach goes beyond assumptions of multivariate normality in the distribution of indirect effects by calculating both the products of coefficients, which assumes normality and then bootstrapping confidence intervals, which do not rely on this assumption, for specific indirect effects (Preacher & Hayes, 2008; Shrout & Bolger, 2002). And finally, this macro uses listwise deletion for all the variables in the model, deleting cases in which data are missing in order to insure the integrity of all path estimates and comparisons (Hayes, 2011).

Findings

Descriptive statistics for the study variables are shown in Table 1, including the means, standard deviations, correlations, and internal consistencies for each of the measures. With respect to Hypothesis 1 (Table 2), Model 2 shows that self-estrangement has a direct, negative effect on trustworthiness (β = −.18, p < .001), and as shown in Model 8, trustworthiness has a direct effect on job performance (β = .17, p < .01). With respect to Hypothesis 2, Model 4 shows that self-estrangement has a direct, negative effect on accessibility (β = −.26, p < .001), and as shown in Model 8, accessibility has a direct effect on job performance (β = .16, p < .01). With respect to Hypothesis 3, Model 6 shows that self-estrangement has a direct, negative effect on peer citizenship behavior (β = −.19, p < .001), and as shown in Model 8, peer citizenship behavior has a direct effect on job performance (β = .45, p < .001). Although self-estrangement had a significant negative effect on job performance (β = −.13, p < .05; Model 7), it had no residual effect on job performance once the mediators were accounted for (Model 9; β = .02, ns). These findings suggest that self-estrangement has a negative indirect effect on job performance through its impact on trustworthiness, accessibility, and peer citizenship behavior.

Table 2

Hierarchical Regression Analysis

Dependent Variable	Trustworthiness		Accessibility		Peer Citizenship		Job Performance
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6	Model 7	Model 8	Model 9
Step 1: Control variables
Age	.29***	.27***	.02	−.01	.18**	.16**	.09	−.03	−.03
Gender	−.14**	−.13*	−.05	−.03	−.11*	−.10	−.06	.03	.03
Position tenure (years)	−.01	.02	.02	.06	.04	.06	.03	−.02	−.02
Dyadic tenure (months)	−.16**	−.17**	−.11	−.12*	−.19**	−.19***	−.15*	−.01	−.01
Professional level	.20***	.16**	.23***	.18**	.12*	.08	.01	−.07	−.07
Step 2
Self-estrangement		−.18***		−.26***		−.19***	−.13*
Trustworthiness								.17**	.17**
Accessibility								.16**	.17**
Peer citizenship behavior								.45***	.45***
Step 3
Self-estrangement									.02
Change in R²	.18***	.03***	.07***	.06***	.09***	.03***	.02*	.39***	.00
R ²	.18	.21	.07	.13	.09	.12	.05	.42	.42
Adjusted R²	.17	.20	.06	.12	.08	.11	.03	.41	.41
F	13.0***	13.1***	4.5***	7.5***	5.9***	6.9***	2.71*	28.1***	24.9***

Note: N = 346.

p < .05.

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

In Table 3, to verify and compare these indirect effects, we report the indirect effects for trustworthiness, accessibility, and peer citizenship behavior using both the products of coefficients and bootstrapping approaches. Hypothesis 1 predicted that self-estrangement would negatively influence the trustworthiness of estranged workers in their social exchanges with coworkers and, as result, have a negative, indirect effect on their job performance. As shown in Table 3, after controlling for the two other mediating effects, the indirect effect of self-estrangement on job performance, through trustworthiness, was –.045 with a significant critical ratio (Z = −2.43, p < .05). Bootstrapping results also show that the 95% bias-corrected confidence interval (CI) using 5,000 resamples (CI = [–.0939, –.0103]) did not include zero. Hence, Hypothesis 1 was fully supported.

Table 3

Indirect Effects

	Effect	SE	Z	Bootstrapping^a
Indirect effects
Trustworthiness	−.045	.0186	−2.43*	[–.0930, –.0103]
Accessibility	−.051	.0193	−2.64**	[–.1008, –.0167]
Peer citizenship behavior	−.132	.0310	−4.27***	[–.2066, –.0783]
Total	−.228	.0409	−5.58***	[–.3183, –.1455]
Contrasts
Trustworthiness vs. accessibility	.006	.0280	0.21	[–.0552, .0692]
Trustworthiness vs. peer citizenship behavior	.087	.0359	2.43*	[.0247, .1757]
Accessibility vs. peer citizenship behavior	.081	.0359	2.26*	[.0163, .1663]

Note: N = 324 (after listwise deletion).

Bias-corrected confidence intervals (95%).

p < .05.

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

Hypothesis 2 predicted that self-estrangement would negatively influence the accessibility of estranged workers in their social exchanges with coworkers and, as a result, have a negative, indirect effect on their job performance. As shown in Table 3, after controlling for the two other mediating effects, the indirect effect of self-estrangement on job performance, through accessibility, was –.051 with a significant critical ratio (Z = −2.64, p < .01). Bootstrapping results also show that the 95% bias-corrected confidence interval using 5,000 resamples (CI = [–.1008, –.0167]) did not include zero. Hence, Hypothesis 2 was fully supported.

Hypothesis 3 predicted that self-estrangement would negatively influence the level of peer citizenship behavior engaged in by estranged workers in their social exchanges with coworkers and, as result, have a negative, indirect effect on their job performance. As shown in Table 3, after controlling for the two other mediating effects, the indirect effect of self-estrangement on job performance, through peer citizenship behavior, was –.132 with a significant critical ratio (Z = −4.27, p < .001). Bootstrapping results also show that the 95% bias-corrected confidence interval using 5,000 resamples (CI = [–.2066, –.0783]) did not include zero. Hence, Hypothesis 3 was fully supported.

Hypothesis 4 predicted that when the intervening roles of trustworthiness, accessibility, and peer citizenship behavior are considered together, each mediator will carry a significant indirect effect of self-estrangement to job performance. As shown in Table 2, Model 8, the full mediation model was significant (∆R² = .39, p < .001) with the addition of these three mediators accounting for 39% of the variance in the direct relationship between self-estrangement and job performance. Moreover, as shown in Table 3, the total indirect effect of self-estrangement on job performance through these three mediators combined as a set (effect = −.228) had a significant critical ratio (Z = −5.58, p < .001). Bootstrapping results also show that the 95% bias-corrected confidence interval using 5,000 resamples (CI = [–.3183, –.1445]) did not include zero. Hence, Hypothesis 4 was fully supported.

Post Hoc Analysis

In order to determine the unique effects of each mediator when combined as a set, we also conducted a post hoc analysis by examining pairwise contrast effects between them. As shown in Table 3, the pairwise contrast effect between trustworthiness and accessibility was not significant (.006; Z = .21, ns; CI = [–.0552, .0692]); however, the pairwise contrast effects between trustworthiness and peer citizenship behavior (.087; Z = 2.43, p < .05; CI = [.0247, .1757]) and between accessibility and peer citizenship behavior (.081; Z = 2.26, p < .05; CI = [.0163, .1663]) were significant. Hence, while the influence of trustworthiness relative to accessibility was not distinguishable, both trustworthiness and accessibility had a unique influence, relative to peer citizenship behavior, in accounting for the indirect effect of self-estrangement on job performance (MacKinnon, 2000; Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Finally, we also examined our results both with and without control variables included and found that not including them did not significantly influence our findings.

Discussion

Despite its pervasiveness, research has not focused on understanding the dysfunctional consequences of self-estrangement in the workplace. To that end, because self-estrangement has been studied primarily as a dimension of alienation and despite extensive evidence suggesting that self-estrangement is an important, core construct (Kanungo, 1979; Nair & Vohra, 2010), we wanted to bring to the fore this largely understudied, salient construct. Relative to prior alienation research, we believe our work contributes in several important ways. First, building on previous reviews of the alienation literature, we identified self-estrangement as an important and distinct core construct deserving of further research. Second, we go beyond previous alienation research by fully articulating a theory-based conceptual definition of self-estrangement and differentiating it from job involvement and engagement. And third, by integrating social exchange theory into our model, we demonstrate the strong indirect effects of self-estrangement on job performance through its dysfunctional impact on reciprocal exchanges with coworkers and, in so doing, extend previous literature by showing how self-estrangement might impact work outcomes, such as job performance.

While our overriding motivation for this study was to further understand how self-estrangement impacts job performance, we were particularly interested in how workers’ levels of self-estrangement influenced their behavior as they engaged in reciprocal exchange relationships with coworkers. We reasoned that their reciprocal exchange relationships could be instrumental in explaining how self-estrangement negatively impacts job performance, particularly as coworkers bore the brunt of such behavior. Moreover, given the paucity of research on coworker reciprocal exchange relationships and the pivotal role they play in the workplace, we sought to provide deeper insights into the behavioral outcomes that underlie these ongoing relationships. Hence, because extant social exchange research has primarily relied upon broad-gauge quality assessments to infer the consequences of exchange relationships, we extended social exchange theory by unpacking the ongoing behavioral outcomes of quality exchanges. In particular, based on extensive review of the social exchange literature, we identified three behavioral outcomes that are inherent in the ongoing reciprocal exchanges among coworkers, including trustworthiness, accessibility, and peer citizenship behavior.

We found, as hypothesized, that self-estrangement indirectly effects job performance through its negative impact on estranged workers’ level of trustworthiness in reciprocal exchanges with coworkers. Said differently, as workers’ self-estrangement increases, they become increasingly less trustworthy in their reciprocal exchanges with coworkers, and as a consequence, their job performance suffers. We also found that self-estrangement, through its negative impact on estranged workers’ level of accessibility to engage in reciprocal exchanges with coworkers, indirectly influences their job performance. Essentially, they pay a price in terms of lower job performance, as they become less accessible to coworkers. In addition, we found that self-estrangement indirectly effects job performance through its negative impact on the estranged workers’ level of peer citizenship behavior. Put simply, estranged workers’ job performance is adversely impacted as they engage in less peer citizenship behavior with coworkers.

Beyond the separate intervening roles played by trustworthiness, accessibility, and peer citizenship behavior, we also found that their combined influence explained the greatest amount of variance in job performance resulting from self-estrangement. In particular, we found that the direct effects of these three behavioral outcomes combined to account for 39% of the total variance in estranged workers’ job performance. In addition, as hypothesized, the total indirect effect of self-estrangement on job performance through these outcomes, as a set, was 22.8%. Moreover, within this set, peer citizenship behavior explained more variance in the negative, indirect effect of self-estrangement on job performance than trustworthiness or accessibility. On the one hand, this finding might provide initial evidence to suggest that peer citizenship behavior may be the most pivotal because it is an altruistic expression of generalized reciprocity, which is the everyday currency of friendships (Sahlins, 1972) among coworkers. Or it might simply be that self-estrangement is particularly damaging to job performance through its corrosive impact on peer citizenship behavior. On the other hand, because reciprocating peer citizenship behavior is not explicitly required, estranged workers may feel less compelled to engage in or reciprocate assistance that is beyond the bounds of their formal defined job. Conversely, because trustworthiness and accessibility are expressions of balanced reciprocity involving assistance within the bounds of their jobs, estranged workers may be more apt to recognize the obligation to reciprocate because it is expected and just. Finally, given the greater impact of peer citizenship behavior on job performance, it could be fruitful to examine its influence on supervisory ratings of job performance to determine if it or other outcomes of social exchange play a greater role.

Nevertheless, because our post hoc analysis revealed that both trustworthiness and accessibility exerted unique influence relative to peer citizenship behavior, we would expect future research might reveal that trustworthiness or accessibility could play more predominant roles than peer citizenship behavior in other contexts. For instance, a study of virtual workers might uncover that trustworthiness or accessibility is more influential in their social exchange relationships, because engagement in peer citizenship behavior could be constrained in this context. Hence, we encourage future researchers to include all three behavioral outcomes in order to more fully understand the influence of coworker reciprocal relationships. We also encourage those who are building upon research investigating the quality of social exchange relationships among vertical dyads or within teams (e.g., Cropanzano et al., 2011; Dirks & Skarlicki, 2009; Sherony & Green, 2002) to consider these multiple dimensions rather than relying on one broad-gauged measure of quality. In this way, future research could benefit from elaborating on the behavioral outcomes of reciprocal exchange relationships.

Limitations

Although we took care to avoid common-method bias by collecting data from three separate sources (participants, knowledgeable coworkers, and supervisors), our study has some limitations that will necessitate future research to verify. First, although our theoretical rationale for causal ordering is supported by our findings, given our cross-sectional data, we can only tentatively conclude that our model appropriately specified causal direction. Thus, for instance, one might contend that a worker’s job performance is inversely related to self-estrangement as a result of its negative impact on a worker’s level of trustworthiness, accessibility, and peer citizenship behavior in social exchanges with coworkers. However, even though job performance is generally viewed as a more distal outcome and not an antecedent in the social exchange literature, we explored this possibility by reversing our model’s direction. Although direct effects remain the same, owing to the correlational link between them, the reversed model explained less than one third of the total variance compared to our model (R² = .13 vs. R² = .42). In addition, with respect to indirect effects, bootstrapping results revealed that trustworthiness (CI = [–.0815, .0288]) and peer citizenship behavior (CI = [–.1258, .0255]) did not carry the influence of job performance to self-estrangement, and all pairwise contrasts were indistinguishable. Thus, while reverse causality appears unlikely, longitudinal research is necessary in order to demonstrate the direction of temporal ordering.

Second, we gathered data from one coworker, posing concerns over single-source bias. However, consistent with the key informant technique (Burgess, 1989; Kumar et al., 1993), we found no evidence of informant bias. And third, because we studied professional-level employees, generalizing our findings to all levels of employees may not be warranted. Generally, professional employees have greater discretion in how they perform their jobs, are more informed about career choices, and have more employment opportunities as a result of advanced education, all of which provide them with greater flexibility in mitigating self-estrangement. On the other hand, because rank-and-file employees are apt to have less discretion, their average level of self-estrangement could be higher and its influence on job performance even more pronounced. However, we believe that self-estrangement is endemic to all workers, whether a knowledge worker or not. Fourth, although we believe our sample was representative, we cannot entirely rule out nonrespondent bias or potential clustering of respondents. Given the large sample size and the care company representatives took in constructing a random sample, such effects do not seem likely. For example, while it is always possible that highly self-estranged workers did not respond to the survey, considering our results based on individuals with a moderate level of self-estrangement (average is 2.09 out of 5), such nonresponse bias suggests our study results are conservative. Replication in other organizations may, nonetheless, be beneficial. And, finally, because our study was not designed to resolve the issue of whether or not self-estrangement (alienation) is the polar opposite of job involvement or engagement, we fully support Chiaburu et al.’s (2014) recent call for further research in this area.

Managerial Implications

While the popular press has highlighted workers whose extreme levels of self-estrangement have resulted in tragic consequences, managers need to appreciate that even a modicum of self-estrangement can be dysfunctional. Indeed, as our research shows, even among professional-level workers who experience relatively low average levels of self-estrangement, there can be significant dysfunctional consequences. These self-estranged workers not only paid a price in the form of lower job performance but also may have done irreparable harm to their social exchange relationships with coworkers. Thus, we believe it is essential for managers to be aware of how self-estrangement’s impact on job performance can be significantly amplified by its corrosive influence on social exchange relationships with coworkers. Managers also need to be alert to expressions of self-estrangement as an early warning signal. They simply cannot wait until the signs of self-estrangement are chronic. In particular, managers need to focus on any changes in their direct reports’ behavior, whether verbal or nonverbal, and be particularly attuned to comments and concerns about their reports, often raised in passing by coworkers (Veiga, 1988). While managers should not overreact, neither should they wait too long for mounting evidence before taking action. Ideally, some early-on focused coaching or personal intervention strategy that attempts to determine what may be triggering feelings of estrangement could be beneficial.

Further, while estranged workers’ underperformance is clearly a concern for managers, perhaps of greater concern is what these workers might spawn among coworkers. Managers need to recognize that trustworthiness, accessibility, and peer citizenship behavior are the fabric of coworker relationships, which are essential to facilitating collaborative activity. Thus, when estranged workers cannot be trusted to reciprocate fairly, are less accessible to coworkers, or do not offer to help or assist coworkers beyond job mandates, they further burden their coworkers and erode coworker productivity as well. If left unchecked, what once may have been a collaborative climate, in which the norms of social exchange were tacitly followed, may now become an atmosphere of mistrust, avoidance, and quid pro quo, with debtors seeking retribution. Here, too, managers need to monitor interactions between coworkers, particularly at formal and informal meetings, where the subtle cues and undertones of dysfunctional exchange relationships may be on display. For example, managers might ask themselves during a meeting, Why is this individual uninvolved or tuned out? Are there signs of underlying animosity or total indifference toward them? Does this individual assiduously avoid volunteering time or effort? Does this individual leave a meeting immediately after it is over rather than socialize? Ideally, managers need to take steps to quickly mitigate such signs either during a meeting or, if necessary, in private conversations, recognizing that if such interventions fail, further steps to isolate the estranged worker may be necessary.

Additionally, although we focus on outcomes of self-estrangement in this study, managers should consider how their work context might be fostering increased self-estrangement. Perhaps the working climate does not provide more fulfilling roles because workers believe they lack power or influence. Indeed, managers might want to routinely consider how their behavior might inadvertently discourage workers from taking initiative or feeling a sense of ownership over their work products, thereby increasing their level of self-estrangement. Indeed, if managers are too controlling or do not give workers due credit for their efforts, their workers are apt to display less initiative, less ownership, and greater dependence on them, further exacerbating feelings of self-estrangement. Clearly, managers might benefit by engaging in some introspection about their own practices. Managers should also consider facilitating preventive activities and events that can positively build and reinforce norms of social exchange and esprit. For example, informal luncheons or even after-hour social gatherings, which encourage frequent social interaction and serve to facilitate positive affective experiences among coworkers, could pay dividends. Such events could serve to enhance social exchange relationships at work and perhaps act as a reservoir to offset some of self-estrangement’s destructive influence on coworker exchange relationships.

Footnotes

Appendix

Acknowledgements

This article was accepted under the editorship of Patrick M. Wright.

References

Allison

1978. A psychometric development of a test for consumer alienation from the marketplace. Journal of Marketing Research, 15: 565-575.

Avila

Fern

Mann

1988. Unraveling criteria for assessing the performance of sales people: A causal analysis. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 8: 45-54.

Bacharach

S. B.

Bamberger

P. A.

Sonnenstuhl

W. J.

2002. Driven to drink: Managerial control, work related risk factors, and employee problem drinking. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 637-658.

Bakker

A. B.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Leiter

W. P.

Taris

T. W.

2008. Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work and Stress, 22: 187-200.

Balkundi

Harrison

2006. Ties, leaders, and time in teams: Strong inference about network structure’s effects on team viability and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 49-68.

Bateman

Organ

1983. Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee “citizenship.” Academy of Management Journal, 26: 587-595.

Bernerth

J. B.

Aguinis

in press. A critical review and best-practice recommendations for control variable usage. Personnel Psychology.

Blau

1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

Blauner

1964. Alienation and freedom: The factory worker and his industry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

10.

Bolino

Turnley

2003. Counternormative impression management, likeability, and performance ratings: The use of intimidation in an organizational setting. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24: 237-250.

11.

Bolino

Turnley

2005. The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 740-748.

12.

Borgatti

Cross

2003. A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks. Management Science, 49: 432-445.

13.

Borman

Motowidlo

1993. Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In Schmidt

Borman

W. C.

(Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations: 71-98. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

14.

Borman

Motowidlo

1997. Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10: 99-109.

15.

Bratton

Callinan

Forshaw

Sawchuck

2007. Work and organizational behavior: Understanding the workplace. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

16.

Brown

1996. A meta-analysis and review of organizational research on job involvement. Psychological Bulletin, 120: 235-255.

17.

Burgess

R. G.

1989. Field research: A sourcebook and manual. New York: Routledge.

18.

Chiaburu

D. S.

Thundiyil

Wang

2014. Alienation and its correlates: A meta-analysis. European Management Journal, 32: 24-36.

19.

Colquitt

Scott

LePine

2007. Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 909-927.

20.

Cropanzano

Benson

2011. Peer justice and teamwork process. Group and Organization Management, 36: 567-596.

21.

Cropanzano

Mitchell

2005. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31: 874-900.

22.

Dansereau

Graen

Haga

W. J.

1975. A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13: 46-78.

23.

Dienesch

R. M.

Liden

R. C.

1986. Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11: 618-634.

24.

Dirks

Ferrin

2002. Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 611-628.

25.

Dirks

K. T.

Skarlicki

D. P.

2009. The relationship between being perceived as trustworthy by coworkers and individual performance. Journal of Management, 35: 136-157.

26.

Flynn

2003. How much should I give and how often? The effects of generosity and frequency on social status and productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 539-553.

27.

Fromm

1955. The sane society. New York: Rinehart.

28.

Gallup. 2013. State of the American workplace. Retrieved August 3, 2014, from http://www.gallup.com/strategicconsulting/163007/state-american-workplace

29.

Golden

Raghuram

2010. Fostering teleworker knowledge sharing: The role of altered relational and technological interactions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31: 1061-1085.

30.

Golden

Veiga

J. F.

Dino

2008. The impact of professional isolation on teleworker job performance and turnover intentions: Does time spent teleworking, interacting face-to-face, or having access to communication-enhancing technology matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 1412-1421.

31.

Grant

Ashford

2008. The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19: 371-386.

32.

Greenberg

Grunberg

1995. Work alienation and problem alcohol behavior. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36: 83-102.

33.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Parasuraman

1993. Job performance attributions and career advancement prospects: An examination of gender and race effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55: 273-297.

34.

Havens

1989. A safe place: Laying the groundwork of psychotherapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

35.

Hayes

A. F.

2011. Macro and script rules and frequently asked questions. Retrieved September 1, 2014, from http://www.afhayes.com/macrofaq.html

36.

Horowitz

I. L.

1966. On alienation and the social order. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 27: 230-237.

37.

Johnson

Cullen

Sakano

Takenouchi

1996. Setting the stage for trust and strategic integration in Japanese-U.S. cooperative alliances. Journal of International Business Studies, 27: 981-1004.

38.

Jones

A. P.

Johnson

L. A.

Butler

M. C.

Main

D. S.

1983. Apples and oranges: An empirical comparison of commonly used indices of interrater agreement. Academy of Management Journal, 26: 506-519.

39.

Kacmar

K. M.

Collins

B. J.

Harris

K. J.

Judge

T. A.

2009. Core self-evaluations and job performance: The role of the perceived work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6): 1572-1580.

40.

Kahn

1990. The psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33: 692-724.

41.

Kahn

1992. To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations, 45: 321-330.

42.

Kanungo

1979. The concepts of alienation and involvement revisited. Psychological Bulletin, 86: 119-138.

43.

Kanungo

1982. Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67: 341-349.

44.

Kelloway

1998. Using Lisrel for structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

45.

Koskinen

Pihlanto

Vanharanta

2003. Tacit knowledge acquisition and sharing in a project work context. International Journal of Project Management, 21: 281-290.

46.

Kumar

Stern

L. W.

Anderson

J. C.

1993. Conducting interorganizational research using key informants. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 1633-1651.

47.

Leiter

1985. Work alienation in the textile industry: Reassessing Blauner. Work and Occupations, 12: 479-498.

48.

Levin

Cross

2004. The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management Science, 50: 1477-1490.

49.

Levin

D. Z.

Whitener

E. M.

Cross

2006. Perceived trustworthiness of knowledge sources: The moderating impact of relationship length. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 1163-1171.

50.

Lodahl

Kejner

1965. The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49: 24-33.

51.

Macey

W. H.

Schneider

2008. The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1: 3-30.

52.

MacKenzie

Podsakoff

Fetter

1991. Organizational citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons’ performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50: 123-150.

53.

MacKenzie

Podsakoff

Fetter

1993. The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on evaluations of salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing, 57: 70-80.

54.

MacKenzie

Podsakoff

Paine

1999. Do citizenship behaviors matter more for managers than for salespeople? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27: 396-410.

55.

MacKinnon

D. P.

2000. Contrasts in multiple mediator models. In Rose

Chassin

Presson

C. C.

Sherman

S. J.

(Eds.), Multivariate applications in substance use research: New methods for new questions: 141-160. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

56.

MacKinnon

D. P.

Lockwood

Hoffman

West

Sheets

2002. A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7: 83-104.

57.

Marx

1932. The economic and philosophical manuscripts. Berlin, Germany: Marx-Engles Institute. (Originally published 1844)

58.

Mathieu

Taylor

2006. Clarifying conditions and decision points for meditational type inferences in Organizational Behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27: 1031-1056.

59.

Mayer

J. D.

Gaschke

Y. N.

1988. The experience and metaexperience of mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55: 102-111.

60.

Mayer

Davis

Schoorman

1995. An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20: 709-734.

61.

McAllister

D. J.

1995. Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 24-59.

62.

McNeely

B. L.

Meglino

B. M.

1994. The role of dispositional and situational antecedents in prosocial organizational behavior: An examination of the intended beneficiaries of prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79: 836-844.

63.

Michaels

Cron

Dubinsky

Joachimsthaler

1988. Influence of formalization on the organizational commitment and work alienation of salespeople and industrial buyers. Journal of Marketing Research, 25: 376-383.

64.

Miller

G. A.

1967. Professionals in bureaucracy: Alienation among industrial scientists and engineers. American Sociological Review, 32: 755-768.

65.

Minuchin

1974. Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

66.

Molm

L. D.

Takahashi

Peterson

2000. Risk and trust in social exchange: An experimental test of a classical proposition. American Journal of Sociology, 105: 1396-1427.

67.

Moon

Kamdar

Mayer

Takeuchi

2008. Me or we? The role of personality and justice as other-centered antecedents to innovative citizenship behaviors within organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 84-94.

68.

Morrison

E. W.

Vancouver

J. B.

2000. Within-person analysis of information seeking: The effects of perceived costs and benefits. Journal of Management, 26: 119-137.

69.

Mottaz

C. J.

1981. Some determinants of work alienation. Sociological Quarterly, 22: 515-529.

70.

Nair

Vohra

2010. An exploration of factors predicting work alienation of knowledge workers. Management Decision, 48: 600-615.

71.

Nair

Vohra

2012. The concept of alienation: Towards conceptual clarity. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 20: 25-50.

72.

National Advisory Mental Health Council. 1995. Basic behavioral science research for mental health, a national investment: Emotion and motivation. American Psychologist, 50: 838-845.

73.

T. W.

Feldman

D. C.

2008. The relationship of age to ten dimensions of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 392-423.

74.

O’Reilly

C. A.

1982. Variations in decision makers’ use of information sources: The impact of quality and accessibility of information. Academy of Management Journal, 25: 756-771.

75.

Organ

1988. Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

76.

Organ

1997. Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10: 85-97.

77.

Organ

Greene

C. N.

1981. The effects of formalization on professional involvement: A compensatory process approach. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26: 237-252.

78.

Overend

1975. Alienation: A conceptual analysis. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 35: 301-322.

79.

Pech

Slade

2006. Employee disengagement: Is there evidence of a growing problem? Handbook of Business Strategy, 7: 21-25.

80.

Pinto

Prescott

1993. Antecedents and consequences of project team cross-functional cooperation. Management Science, 39: 1281-1297.

81.

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

Paine

Bachrach

2000. Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26: 513-563.

82.

Podsakoff

Williams

Todor

1986. Effects of organizational formalization on alienation among professionals and nonprofessionals. Academy of Management Journal, 29: 620-631.

83.

Poole

Regoli

1981. Alienation in prison: An examination of the work relations of prison guards. Criminology, 19: 251-270.

84.

Preacher

Hayes

2008. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40: 879-891.

85.

Preacher

Rucker

Hayes

2007. Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42: 185-227.

86.

Reevy

Ozer

M. Y.

Ito

2010. Encyclopedia of emotion. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood.

87.

Riketta

2002. Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23: 257-266.

88.

Rousseau

1977. Technological differences in job characteristics, employee satisfaction, and motivation: A synthesis of job design research and sociotechnical systems theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19: 18-42.

89.

Russell

J. A.

Carroll

J. M.

1999. On the bipolarity of positive and negative affect. Psychological Bulletin, 125: 3-10.

90.

Sahlins

1972. Stone age economics. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.

91.

Sarros

Tanewski

Winter

Santora

Densten

2002. Work alienation and organizational leadership. British Journal of Management, 13: 285-304.

92.

Schacht

1970. Alienation. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

93.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Bakker

A. B.

Salanova

2006. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66: 701-716.

94.

Seeman

1959. On the meaning of alienation. American Sociological Review, 24: 783-791.

95.

Seeman

1975. Alienation studies. Annual Review of Sociology, 1: 91-123.

96.

Sherony

K. M.

Green

S. G.

2002. Coworker exchange: Relationships between coworkers, leader-member exchange, and work attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 542-548.

97.

Shrout

Bolger

2002. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7: 422-445.

98.

Smith

Organ

Near

1983. Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68: 653-663.

99.

Sparrowe

Liden

1997. Process and structure in leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22: 522-552.

100.

Sturman

M. C.

2003. Searching for the inverted U-shaped relationship between time and performance: Meta-analyses of the experience/performance, tenure/performance, and age/performance relationships. Journal of Management, 29: 609-640.

101.

Tellegen

Watson

Clark

L. A.

1999. On the dimensional and hierarchical nature of affect. Psychological Science, 10: 297-303.

102.

Tubre

T. C.

Collins

J. M.

2000. Jackson and Schuler (1985) revisited: A meta-analysis of the relationships between role ambiguity, role conflict, and job performance. Journal of Management, 26: 155-169.

103.

Uhl-Bien

Maslyn

2003. Reciprocity in manager-subordinate relationships: Components, configurations, and outcomes. Journal of Management, 29: 511-532.

104.

Veiga

J. F.

1988. Face your problem subordinates now! Academy of Management Executive, 2: 145-152.

105.

Watson

Clark

L. A.

1997. The measurement and mismeasurement of mood: Recurrent and emergent issues. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86: 267-296.

106.

Wayne

S. J.

Liden

R. C.

1995. Effects of impression management on performance ratings: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 232-260.

107.

Wayne

S. J.

Shore

L. M.

Liden

R. C.

1997. Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 82-111.

108.

Williams

Anderson

1991. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17: 601-617.

109.

Wright

T. A.

Bonett

D. G.

2002. The moderating effects of employee tenure on the relation between organizational commitment and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 1183-1190.

110.

Hom

Tetrick

Shore

Jia

Song

2006. The norm of reciprocity: Scale development and validation in the Chinese context. Management and Organization Review, 2: 377-402.

111.

Yuan

Y. C.

Carboni

Ehrlich

2010. The impact of awareness and accessibility on expertise retrieval: A multilevel network perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61: 700-714.

112.

Zautra

A. J.

Potter

P. T.

Reich

J. W.

1997. The independence of affects is context-dependent: An integrative model of the relationship between positive and negative affect. In Lawton

M. P.

Schaie

K. W.

(Eds.), Annual review of gerontology and geriatrics (Vol. 17): 75-102. New York: Springer.